International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

26

Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of RC

Buildings in KSA According to the Seismic
Requirements of the Saudi Building Code and
Suggesting the Retrofit Systems
Abo El-Wafa, W. M.1;2 , Mostafa, M. M. 1 , Almalki, A. H. 1
1
2

Engineering Collage, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Faculty of Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.

Abstract The first S audi Building Code (S BC) was issued

in 2007 to be verified and tentatively applied reaching to the
obligatory application. In the recent decades, many quakes
have hit the Kingdom of S audi Arabia (KS A). The hollow
block slab system is widely used in the residual and commercial
buildings due to the variety of advantages they introduce. This
study presents a performance assessment analysis of hollow
block slab type R.C buildings designed as a gravity load or
prior to the application of the seismic requirements of the S BC.
The sample building is assumed to be located in three cities
with different seismic intensities (small, medium and high). The
3-D nonlinear pushover analysis procedure is utilized in
evaluating the seismic performance of the original
building.Three different retrofit techniques are proposed and
analyzed. The design response spectrum suggested by the S BC
for the selected cities are used in the nonlinear pushover
analysis. This is along with using a real compatible earthquake
in carrying out a time history analysis. A comparative quantity
and cost analysis between the proposed retrofittedsystems is
also carried out. It is found that the gravity load designed
hollow block slab building completely fails, in many cases,
from meeting the response spectrum suggested by the S BC.
The three suggested retrofitting methods can highly increase
both the strength and stiffness of the original building and
hence its spectral acceleration. All the suggested retrofitting
systems enable the original building to meet all of the applied
response spectrum at reliable performance points. The study
also shows how every suggested retrofitting system can
upgrade the seismic behavior of the original building. Quantity
and cost analysis comparison study is also carried out.
Index Term seismic evaluation, nonlinear pushover
analysis, hollow block slab building, retrofit systems.
I. INT RODUCT ION
The seismic performance evaluation and upgrading of
non-seismic designed building structures located in new
seismic zones is considered as an innovative challenge for
seismic engineers and researchers. This concept has become
an urgent issue in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after the
potential damage observed for many buildings during the
1995 quake in Tabuk, and also the quakes that shock the

Kingdom in years 1999, 2009 [1]. The seismic risk analysis

of buildings is important for identifying the seismic
vulnerability of structural systems under the effect of
seismic ground motions and achieve the purpose of seismic
seismic hazard mitigation [2], [3]. A great task for seismic
engineers and researchers is to decide how to retrofit an
existing structure to upgrade its seismic capacity and to
whatlevel of protection [4]. Flat and hollow blocks slab
building structures are widely used due to many advantages
they have over the moment resisting frames. They provide
lower building heights, unobstructed space, architectural
flexibility and easier frame work. However, due to lack of
deep beams and/or shear walls, the resulted transverse
stiffness will be low. This may lead to potential damage
when subjected to earthquakes even with moderate intensity.
The brittle punching failure due to transfer of shear forces
and unbalanced moments between slabs and columns may
cause serious problems. These systems are also susceptible
to significant reduction in stiffness resulting from the
cracking that occurs from construction loads, service gravity
and lateral loads [5], [6]. Moreover, in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, columns with relatively small thickness are
usually used in buildings. Due to the previous mentioned
reasons effective and economic retrofit s ystems should be
provided for the weak buildings.
There are many retrofit systems developed for RC
buildings. Essentially, there are two main retrofitting
techniques, the first is considered as non-conventional
method, which incorporates base isolation and energy
dissipation systems. This technique aims to increase the
structural ductility and hence reduce the earthquake demand.
The practical applicability of this technique is somehow
limited. The second one is the system of strengthening and
stiffening which is considered the most common seismic
performance improvement strategies adopted for buildings
with inadequate lateral force resisting systems. Typical
systems employed for stiffening and strengthening include
column strengthening and the addition of n ew vertical
elements as moment resisting frames, shear walls or braced
frames. The philosophy here is to provide systems that are
strong enough to resist the seismic forces and light enough
to keep the structuralelements from needing further
reinforcement [7], [8]. Most of the existing methods need
emptying the building during the retrofitting process, which

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

II. ORIGINAL BUILDING: DESCRIPT ION AND MODELING

The studied building is a six stories reinforced concrete
office building. The plan measures 32.0 meter by 15.0
meter. The configuration of the building is shown in Fig. 1.
The building has six stories with height from the ground of
19 m, the typical story height is 3.0 m except the first storey
which has a height of 4.0 m, no basement is presented. The
gravity load resisting system consists of 0.25 m thick one
way hollow block slabs carrying the floor loads to interior
solid slabs and external dropped beams and hence to the
interior columns and perimeter frames. The lateral load
resisting system is only the relatively rigid slabs through
frames and columns. The perimeter frames consist of beams
and columns with tee and square sections, relatively.
The compressive strength of concrete used in the building
is 22.50 MPa while the used steel is mild steel with yield
strength of 280 MPa. The three dimensional nonlinear
pushover and linear time history are constructed and
analyzed using ETABS software package, nonlinear version
9.6 [19].

15
5

B
5

creates serious problems . Therefore, it is highly preferable

that these systems could be installed quickly [9].
Nonlinear time history analysis of a detailed analytical
model may be the best decision for estimating the damage.
However, there are many uncertainties due to the selection
of specific input and with the analytical models representing
the behavior of the structure. Pushover analysis monitors the
progressive stiffness degradation of a structure as it is
loaded into the post elastic range. The inelastic static
pushover analysis is an effective option for estimating the
strength capacity and highlighting potential weak areas in
the structure. The method allows tracing the sequence of
yielding and failure of the members and also captures the
overall capacity curve of the structure. The static pushover
procedure has been recommended as a tool for design and
assessment purposes by many associations as the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program 'NEHRP' (FEMA
273) [10] guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of existing
buildings and the Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Concrete Buildings ATC-40 [11]. The technique has been
used and evaluated as the main tool of analysis in several
studies [12]- [16].
The seismic design provisions and analysis methods
appeared in the Saudi Building Code - Structural
requirements for Loads and Forces - (SBC 301) [17] are
considered a significant step toward improving the seismic
performance of buildings constructed in KSA. The concept
of retrofitting and upgrading gravity load designed or
designed according to earlier codes that do not guarantee
seismic protections is considered important. However, the
SBC 301 or the Saudi Building Code for concrete structures
SBC 304 [18] do not offer provisions about how to deal
with such branch neither recommendations about the
suitable approaches of evaluations and the acceptable
performance limits.
The purpose of this study is to offer a seismic performance
evaluation of a gravity load, or designed prior to the
application of the SBC, six stories hollow block slab
building with plan dimensions of 32.0 m x 15.0 m. The level
of seismic protection provided by the original building when
located in three cities with different seismic intensities
(small, medium and high) is examined. Different retrofitting
systems are to be proposed and examined, in this study, as
strengthening the columns, introducing shear walls or
utilizing steel chevron bracing. 3-D nonlinear pushover
analysis is adopted to evaluate the performance of the
existing and retrofitted structure. Moreover, an elastic time
history analysis is carried out. A comparative quantity and
cost analysis between the proposed retrofitted buildings is
also carried out. The objectives of this investigation can be
summarized as:
(i) To examine the seismic performance of non-seismic
hollow block slab building located in three cities with
different seismic intensities and different soil
properties .
(ii) Suggest three different retrofitting systems and compare
their performances.
(iii) Apply the approach of nonlinear pushover analysis and
compare it with the elastic time history analysis.
(iv) Present comparative quantity and cost analysis.

27

A
7

4
32

Fig. 1. Plan of the investigated original building

III. SPECT RAL RESPONSE A CCELERAT ION INSBC

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been divided into seven

regions for determining the maximum considered
earthquake ground motion in the SBC. The considered
spectral response acceleration suggested by this code is
shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Response spectrum in Saudi Building Code

Where:

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

(1)

0.7

S M1 = FvS 1

(2)

0.6

S DS = S MS

(3)

S D1 = S M1 (4)
In which
S MS

The max considered earthquake, 5% damped,

spectral response acc. at short periods.
Fa
: Acceleration based site cooefficient.
Ss
: The mapped max considered earthquake, 5%
damped, spectral response acc. at short periods.
S M1 : The max considered earthquake, 5% damped,
spectral response acc. at a period of 1 sec.
Fv
: Velocitybased site coefficient at 1.0 sec. period
S DS : The design, 5% damped, spectral response
acceleration at short period.
S1
: The design, 5% damped, spectral response
acceleration at a period of 1 sec.
The values of the above mentioned parameters are
specified by the SBC in the form of tables and graphs .
In this study, three different cities having different seismic
intensities (low, medium and high) are considered. The
chosen cities and the corresponding values of S S andS 1 are
illustrated in Table I.
T ABLE I

SEISMIC VALUES FOR T HE CHOSEN CIT IES

Town
Jeddah
Maghna
Hakl

SS
30.0
57.79
86.56

S1
10.9
17.0
28.10

Grade
low
medium
high

Symbol
JED
MAG
HAK

Spectral Acc. (g)

S MS = Fa S S

28

JED
M AG
HAK

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Spectrl displacement (m)

Fig. 4. Response spectrum of soil type E

IV. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR

ORIGINAL
BUILDING
20 20OF
155
110
Load displacement and modal analysis results are
combined to generate the required acceleration displacement
response spectrum(ADRS). A 5% percent damped elastic
demand response spectrum for each of the three studied
cities are generated and applied to the capacity spectrum of
the original building either founded on soil type D or soil
type E as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. It can be observed that the
lateral capacity of the original building is very small. The
original building completely fails to intersect the elastic
spectra for HAK or MAG cities when founding on soil type
E while it fails to intersect the elastic spectrum of HAK
citywhen founding on soil type E.
0.7

JED
M AG
HAK

Two types of soils are used as a foundation for the case of

study building which are soil type D and soil type E. Soil
type D represents stiff soil with 180 m/s vs
370 m/s.
Soil type E represents a soil with vs 180 m/s. where vs is
the shear wave velocity. Figs. 3, 4 introduce the 5%
response spectra adopted for the selected cities with soil
types D and E, respectively.

Spectral Acc. (g)

0.6

0.3
0.2

0
0

JED
M AG
HAK

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Spectrl displacement (m)

Fig. 5. Five percent damped elastic spectrum: original building soil type D

0.5
0.4

0.7

0.3

0.6

0.2
0.1
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Spectral displacement (m)

Fig. 3. Response spectrum of soil type D
20 20 155 110

0.2

Spectral Acc. (g)

Spectral Acc. (g)

0.4

0.1

0.7
0.6

0.5

JED
M AG
HAK

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Spectrl displacement (m)

Fig. 6. Five percent damped elastic spectrum: original building soil type E
20 20 155 110

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

The effective inelastic damping ratios calculated for HAK

city soil type D reaches up to 15%. This inelastic response
enables the original building to meet the demand inelastic
response spectrum of the mentioned city.Although using the
inelastic response spectrum, the original building still far
away from intersecting the demand response spectrum of
HAK city when founding on soil type E.It can just meet the
response spectra of MAG city at the end of performance
when founding on the same soil. The shown figures and
discussed results about the lateral capacity of the original
building compared to the elastic and inelastic demand
spectra of the applied response spectrum of the chosen cities
emphasizes that a seismic retrofitting program is required.
The required retrofitting systems should increase the
strength and stiffness of the original building to prevent
collapse under earthquakes with high seismicity and
enhance its behavior under medium and low quakes. The
inelastic response is shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

29

System II, Adding shear walls (SW): Two shear walls in

the short direction are added to the original building. The
ratio of the total length of the added shear walls , in the
mentioned direction, to the total height of the building is
designed to be equal to 0.25. Achieving this, the length of
each shear wall is taken 2.30 m. One shear wall is added in
the longitudinal direction with length equal to 4.0 m. The
thickness of all shear walls is taken equal to 0.20 m. The
configuration of the shear walls , in both directions is
illustrated in Fig. 9.
System III: Inserting steel chevron bracing (Br.): Chevron
bracing elementsare applied to two originally existing
exterior frames in the short direction, axis 1 and 6. The cross
section of the bracing is hollow square box section of 0.20
m width and variable thickness. The thickness of the bracing
elements varies every two floors; it is 0.01, 0008 and 0.006
m from bottom floor to top floor. In the long direction
chevron bracing is also applied to one frame along axis D.
The configuration is shown in Figs. 10 to 12.

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1
A

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Spectral displacement (m)

4
32

Fig. 9. Plan of the retrofitting system: shear wall (SW)

Fig. 7. Effective inelastic response spectrum: original building soil type D

D

0.6

BR

JED
M AG
HAK

0.5

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

C
15
5

0.4
0.3

0.2

Spectral Acc. (g)

SW

0.2

0
0

SW
SW

15
5

0.4

Spectral Acc. (g)

JED
M AG
HAK

0.6

0.1

A
7

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

4
32

Fig. 10. Plan of the retrofitting system: Steel chevron bracing (BR)

Spectral displacement (m)

Fig. 8. Effective inelastic response spectrum: original building soil type E
30 25
165 110
V. SUGGEST ED RET
ROFIT
T ING SYST EMS
A preliminary approach to design the suggested
retrofitting systems using the nonlinear pushover analysis to
find performance points within required deformation limit is
carried out. The applied systems are briefly described as
follows:
System I, Adding R. C. column jackets (CJ) to all the
existing columns, the thickness of the column jacket is0.075
m from each side. Same steel bars, in number and diameter
as in the existing columns, are utilized in the column jacket.

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

30

to 66%. The percentage increase for the other two systems

does not exceed about 25%.

Base shear (MN)

4.0 m
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

0
0

Fig. 11. Elevation of exterior frame along axis 1 and 6 in short direction

ORG
CJ
SW
BR

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Monitored lateral displacement (m)

20 25 155 110
Fig. 13.Base shear versus lateral displacement
for all the studied systems

Fig. 12. Elevation of exterior frame along axis D in long direction

VI. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF T HE RET ROFIT T ED BUILDING

3-D nonlinear pushover analysis is applied to the
retrofitted building with a procedure similar to that applied
to the original building. As the primary elements of the
retrofitted building are combinations of the existing and new
elements, the structural behavior type is selected as type B
[9]. The classical capacity curves represented by base shear
and lateral displacement for the original and retrofitted
building are obtained as shown in Fig. 13. The mechanism
of the retrofitting systems can be clearly observed from this
figure.The suggested systems can highly increase the lateral
strength of the original building depending on the
retrofitting type. The highest ratio of increase in the strength
is observed for the BR system. The observed base shear for
this system is increased to about 228%. The second ratio of
increase is obtained for the SW system with a percentage of
200%. The lowest one in the percentage increase isobserved
for the CJ system which is 128%. The aforementioned ratios
are calculated relative to the original building. The observed
stiffness of the retrofitted building with different systems
isalso increased. The highest value is observed for the BR
system while the lowest value is observed for the CJ system.
The monitored lateral displacement of the original building
is also increased due to using retrofitting systems. Unlike
the strength and stiffness, the highest ration of increase is
observed for the CJ system with a percentage increase equal

The capacity spectrum curves defined by spectral

displacement and spectrl acceleration (ADRS) are calculated
and plotted for the building with different retrofitting
systems relying on the pushover analysis. The performance
points resulting from the intersection between nonlinear
capacity spectrum and reduced effective spectra, of the
different studied cities, are also calculated. The obtained
results for the building utilizing different retrofitting systems
when founded on either soil type D or soil type E are
displayed in Figs. 14 to 19. It can be realized that all
suggested retrofitting systems succeed in highly increasing
the spectrum acceleration and displacement associated with
the original building. This increase in the mentioned
spectrum enables the original building to meet all the target
spectraof the different case of study buildings in a very
reliable performance points.This increase is considered as a
direct result of increasing the lateral stiffness and strength of
the building. The ratios of maximum increase in spectrum
acceleration is not less than 123 %, relative to the original
building, this ratio increases to reach up to 355 %. The
highest ratios are observed for BR, SW, and CJ systems,
respectively, the ratios of percentage increase in acceleration
are shown in Table 2. As the suggested retrofitting s ystems
are applied to increase the stiffness and strength of the
original building rather than increasing its ductility, the
percentage increase in spectral displacement for the
retrofitted building has small values relative to the spectral
acceleration when using either BR or SW systems . The
percentage increase in the spectral displacementsdoes not
exceed 5% as also shown in Table II. Higher ductility is
observed when using the CJ system with a percentage
increase of about 50%. This increase in the mentioned
spectra enables the original building to meet all the target
plastic demand spectra of the suggested different retrofitting
systems in a very reliable performance points. As mentioned
before, the original building completely fails, in many of the
study cases, from meeting the target acceleration
displacement spectra in any performance point. As founding
on soil type E is considered as the worst case for the original
building, that it fails to meet the spectrums of MAG and
HAK cities. Using any of the suggested retrofitting systems
can completely eliminate this problem. However, the

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

0.7

JED
MAG
HAK

Spectral Acc. (g)

0.6

0.7

0.2

Original

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Spectral displacement
Fig. 17. Response spectrum for SW
system
20 25
155 (soil
110 type E)

0.2

Original
0.7

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Fig. 14. Response spectrum for CJ system (soil type D)

0.7

20 25 160 110

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Original

0.1

JED
MAG
HAK

0.6

JED
M AG
HAK

Retrofitted

0.6

Spectral Acc. (g)

0.05

Spectral displacement

0
0

0.5

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Spectral displacement
0.4

Retrofitted

0.3

Fig. 18. Response spectrum for BR system (soil type D)

20 115 155 200
0.7

0.2

Original

0.1
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Spectral displacement
Fig. 15. Response spectrum for CJ system (soil type E)

20 115 155 200

0.7

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Original
0.1

JED
M AG
HAK

0.6

Retrofitted

0.5

JED
M AG
HAK

Retrofitted

0.6

Spectral Acc. (g)

Spectral Acc. (g)

0.3

Retrofitted

0.1

Spectral Acc. (g)

Retrofitted

0.4

0
0

0.4

0
0

0.5

0.1

0.5

0.3

JED
M AG
HAK

0.6

Spectral Acc. (g)

performance points of the retrofitted building, when

founding on soil type E, are shifted, rather than founding on
soil type D, somehow towardsto the end of performance.
This was observed for all the suggested retrofitting systems.

31

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Spectral displacement

0.4

Fig. 19. Response spectrum for BR system (soil type E)

0.3
0.2

20 25 155 110
T ABLE II
SEISMIC VALUES FOR T HE CHOSEN CIT IES

Original

0.1
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Spectral displacement
Fig. 16. Response spectrum for SW system (soil type D)
20 25 155 110

0.25

System
Spectralacceleration
Spectral displacement

CJ
123%
50%

SW
219%
5%

BR
355%
5%

VII. TIME HIST ORY ANALYSIS

To carry out a 3-D linear time history analysis using a real
quake, the NORTHRIDGE EQ 1/17/94is selected. The peak
value of the 5% response spectra of this quake is close to
that of the response spectrum suggested for HAK city by the
Saudi Building Code. This earthquake hit a city with soil

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

Acceleration (g)

0.2

0.1

10

15

20

Time (sec)
Fig. 20. Acceleration time history for Northridge quake
0.7
0.6

Spectral Acc. (g)

BR

100

SW
50

CJ
ORG

0
0

10

15

20

Time (sec)
Fig. 22. Input energy time history
systems
20 for
25 the
155different
110

VIII. COMPARAT IVE QUANT IT Y AND COST ANALYSIS

A quantity and cost model study is carried out to report on
the applicability of using the structural performance levels
for the seismic retrofit designs. The objective of the quantity
and cost analysis is to provide a comparison between the
costs of retrofit of the different suggested retrofitting
systems. The following assumptions are taken into
consideration.
1- A foundation is made for the erected shear walls.
2- 20% of the section material is added to accommodate the
connections in the case of the BR system.
3- The cost of finishingis not included.
4- The price of the one cubic meter of R.C required for the
CJ retrofitting system is about 1.4 times the same amount
required for the SW retrofitting system.
5- The cost of one ton of steel required for the erection of
braces used in the BR retrofitting system is about 3.5 times
the cost of 1 cubic meter of R.C required for the SW
retrofitting system.
The quantities of the utilized materials are shown in Table
III.

-0.1

-0.2
0

150

Input Energy (KN.m)

propertiesclose to that of soil type E.The acceleration time

history of the utilized quake is shown in Fig. 20 while the
response spectrum of the quake is shown in Fig. 21. For
brevity, the results of the input energy for the different
retrofitting systems versus the original building are
illustrated in Fig. 22. It can, to somehow, be concluded that
the obtained values of the time history analysis for the
original building and the retrofitted ones can verify the
results obtained for the nonlinear push over analysis. It can
be observed that the time history of the building retrofitted
using the CJ system is close to the original one while the
maximum values of the input energies of the retrofired
building using either the SW or BR system are higher than
that is obtained for the original one. The obtained
percentage increase in input energy is small for the CJ
retrofitting system with a value of only 10%. This
percentage increases to be 64% for the SW system, while it
highly increases for the BR system with a value of about
300%.

32

0.5

Depending on the aforementioned assumptions and the

values mentioned in the table it is observed that the cheapest
cost is applying shear wall systems. The second expensive
one is the BR system with a cost about 1.61 times the cost of
the SW system. The most expensive system is that using CJ,
which is the most popular retrofitting system, with a cost of
about 2.57 times the cost SW system.

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.5

1.5

Period (sec)
Fig. 21. Spectrum acceleration for Northridge quake

20 25 155 110

2.5

T ABLE III

QUANT IT IES AND COST COMPARISON BET WEEN DIFFERENT

RET ROFIT T ING SYST EMS
Retrofitting System
Reinforced concrete (m 3 )
Steel for braces (ton)
Cost factor
Cost ratios

SW
39
1
1

CJ
66
1.40
1.61

BR
18
3.5
2.57

IX. CONCLUSION
An analytical seismic performance evaluation of hollow
block slab type building designed, only, for gravity loads is
carried out. Three different retrofitting systems are
suggested and evaluated using 3-D nonlinear pushover
analysis. However, comparison with linear time history

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:13 No:03

analysis is also carried out. The response spectra suggested
from the SBC for three cities with different intensities are
utilized. The case of study buildings are assumed to be
founded on either soil types D or E. Northridge quake is
utilized in the time history analysis. The following
conclusions may be drawn out.
1) The original hollow block slab type building is
susceptible to the applied elastic 5% damped response
spectrum, the building completely fails to meet the elastic
response spectra of HAK city, either for soil type D or
type E. The same is observed for MAG city when founding
on soil type E.
2) Although utilizing the inelastic effective response
spectra of the case of study cities, the original building still
completely fails to meet the response spectrum of HAK city
(soil type E). It can hardly meet the response spectra of
HAK city (soil type D) and MAG city (soil type E) at
almost the end of the inelastic response.
3) All the suggested retrofitting systems succeed in highly
increasing the capacity base shear of the building and hence
increasing the spectrum acceleration. All the suggested
retrofitting systems can meet all the subjected spectrums in
very reliable performance points.The percentage increase in
spectrum acceleration ranges between 123 % and 355 %.
Unlike the high increase in the spectrum accelerations the
increase in the spectrum displacements is small; it ranges
between 5% and 50%.
4) The highest increase in the values of response spectrum
is observed for the BR system followed by the SW system
and finally the CJ system.
5) The 3- D nonlinear pushover analysis proved to be a
powerful tool in reasonably evaluating the seismic
performance of original building, suggesting the suitable
retrofitting systems and determining the locations, sequence
and limit of plastic hinges.
6) The input energy calculated from the linear time history
shows that the input energy increases for the suggested
retrofitting systems rather than the original building. The
orders of the increase are similar to that obtained for the
spectrum acceleration obtained from the push over analysis.
7) From the carried out quantity analysis, it is found that the
minimum cost between the three suggested systems is the
SW system. The expected cost of the BR system is about
1.61 times the cost of the SW system while the expected
cost of the CJ is the most expensive with a cost of about
2.57 times the cost of the SW system.
8) The BR system can provide a superior advantage rather
than the other two suggested systems. It does need any
evacuation of the building during the erection, all the
required work is outside the building.
9) Finally, provisions about the procedures and accepted
performance limits of gravity load 6designed buildings or
buildings designed prior to the release of the SBC need to
be presented by the Saudi Building Code.
10) The scope of this paper can be extended to assess other
types of buildings as moment resisting and shear wall
buildings.
A CKNOWLEDGMENT S
This study is supported by Taif University under a (Grant
No. 1-433-1764). The university is highly acknowledged for
its financial support.

33

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]

Web site of the Saudi Geological Survey. Available at

www.sgs.org.sa
Hong, N.K., Hong and G.H., Chang, S. P., "Computer supported evaluation for seismic performance of existing
buildings" Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 34, pp.
87-101, 2003.
Kircil, M .S. and Polat, Z., "Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C
frame buildings" Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, pp. 13351345, 2006.
Ghobarah, A., El-Attar, M ., Aly and N. M ., "Evaluation of
retrofit strategies for reinforced concrete columns: a case
study" Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, pp. 490-501, 2000.
Erberik, M .A. and Elnashai, A.S., "Fragility analysis of flat
slab structures" Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, pp. 937-948,
2004.
Abo El-Wafa, W.M ., and Abd El-Naiem, M . A., Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of an Asymmetric Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slab Building, Journal of Engineering
Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Assiut University, Vol. 36,
No. 2, pp. 313-335, M arch (2008).
Toker, S.and Unay, I.A.,"Re-characterization of architectural
style of reinforced concrete building facades by exterior
seismic strengthening" Building and Environment, Vol. 41,
pp. 1952-1960, 2006.
Tena-Colunga, A.and Verga, A., "Comparative study on the
seismic retrofit of a mid-rise steel building: steel bracing vs
energy dissipation" Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 26 pp, 637-655, 1997.
Berman, J.W., Celik, O.C. and Bruneau, M ., "Comparing
hysteretic behavior of light-gauge steel plate shear walls and
braced frames" Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 475-485,
2005.
FEM A. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. FEM A 273, Federal Emergency M anagement
Agency, 1996.
Applied Technology Council, Seismic evaluation and retrofit
of concrete buildings, Vol. 1. Washington, DC, USA: ATC40, 1996.
M wafy, A.M . and Elnashai, A.S.,"Static pushover versus
dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings" Vol. 23, pp. 407424, 2001.
M oghaddam, H. and Hajirasouliha, I., "An investigation on
the accuracy of pushover analysis for estimating the seismic
deformation of braced steel frames" Journal of constructional
steel research, Vol. 62, pp. 343-351, 2006.
Hasan, R., Xu, L. and Grierson, D. E., " Push-over analysis
for performance-based seismic design" Computers &
Structures, Vol. 80, pp. 2483-2493, 2002.
Sucuoglu, H., Gurel, T.Y. and Gunay, S., " Performancebased seismic rehabilitation of damaged reinforced concrete
buildings" J. Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 10,
pp. 1475- 1486, (2004).
Balkaya, C., Kalkan, E., "Nonlinear seismic response
evaluation of tunnel form building structures, Computers &
Structures, Vol. 81, pp. 153-165, 2003.
Saudi Building Code Requirements, 301, Structural Loading and Forces, 2007.
Saudi Building Code Requirements, 304, Structural Concrete Structures, 2007.
" ETABS, Nonlinear version 8 Beta, Extended 3-D analysis
of building systems", Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, U.S.A., 2001.

135303-2424-IJET-IJENS June 2013 IJENS

I J ENS